Objections. *Plaintiff objects that this request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Plaintiff further objects to the ambiguity and overbroadness of the words “writings,” “things,” and “conversations.” Plaintiff further objects to the ambiguity and overbroadness of “Santa Monica College District agents, officers, and/or employees.” Plaintiff additionally objects to the ambiguity and vagueness of “conversations for which you were present but did not participate.” Plaintiff additionally objects to the burdensomeness of the request as it is unlimited in time frame and, as such, overbroad, harassing, annoying, irrelevant, and unintelligible. Plaintiff further objects that any such documents are in the custody and control of Defendants and, as a result, are more easily assessable to Defendants than to Plaintiff. Thus, this request is harassing, annoying, and burdensome. Plaintiff additionally objects to this request as it calls for documents protected by the attorney work product privilege and work product doctrine. Plaintiff additionally objects that this request assumes a fact not admitted into evidence concerning “audio tape recordings, or other recordings of your conversations with (_), officers, and/or employees (including conversations for which you were present but did not participate).” Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad in its use of the terms “audio tape recordings” and “other recordings.” Plaintiff additionally objects on the grounds that this request seeks information neither relevant to the subject matter of the action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This case deals exclusively with the inspection and production of documents in the custody and control of Defendants, as set forth in the California Public Records Act. *Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague. Subject to and without waiver of their general and specific objections, Defendants will make available for inspection and copying all such documents in their possession which they believe are responsive to this Request. Defendants object to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome. * Plaintiff objects to this Request, insofar as it seeks all documents which refer in any way to defendant, on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of their general and specific objections, will make available for inspection and copying defendant’s personnel record. * Plaintiff objects to this Request insofar as it seeks disclosure of information that is protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. Defendants object to sub-part C of this Request on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of confidential information and is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Subject to and without waiver of their general and specific objections, and subject to an appropriate stipulation and protective order regarding confidentiality, Defendants will make available for inspection and copying all non-privileged documents which they believe are responsive to parts (A) and (B) of this Request. * Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the term "support personnel" is vague and on the grounds that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks confidential employee information. Subject to and without waiver of their general objections, Plainfiff will make available for inspection and copying all such documents in their possession which they believe are responsive to this Request. * Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and may require the disclosure of confidential information. Subject to and without waiver of their general and specific objections, Plaintiff will make available for inspection and copying. *Plaintiff objects to each and every request for production to the extent that the request seeks information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege. *Plaintiff objects to each and every request for production to the extent that the request is unduly and unreasonably oppressive, harassing, annoying, burdensome, overbroad or constitutes an abuse of the discovery practice. Plaintiff objects that this request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Plaintiff further objects to the ambiguity and overbroadness of the words “writings,” “things,” and “conversations.” Plaintiff further objects to the ambiguity and overbroadness of “Santa Monica College District agents, officers, and/or employees.” Plaintiff additionally objects to the ambiguity and vagueness of “conversations for which you were present but did not participate.” Plaintiff additionally objects to the burdensomeness of the request as it is unlimited in time frame and, as such, overbroad, harassing, annoying, irrelevant, and unintelligible. *Plaintiff further objects that any such documents are in the custody and control of Defendants and, as a result, are more easily assessable to Defendants than to Plaintiff. Thus, this request is harassing, annoying, and burdensome. Plaintiff additionally objects to this request as it calls for documents protected by the attorney work product privilege and work product doctrine. *Plaintiff additionally objects that this request assumes a fact not admitted into evidence concerning “audio tape recordings, or other recordings of your conversations with (___), officers, and/or employees (including conversations for which you were present but did not participate).” Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad in its use of the terms “audio tape recordings” and “other recordings.” *Plaintiff additionally objects on the grounds that this request seeks information neither relevant to the subject matter of the action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This case deals exclusively with the inspection and production of documents in the custody and control of Defendants, as set forth in the California Public Records Act.
*Plaintiff objects that this request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Plaintiff further objects to the ambiguity and overbroadness of the words “writings,” “things,” and “conversations.” Plaintiff further objects to the ambiguity and overbroadness of “Santa Monica College District agents, officers, and/or employees.” Plaintiff additionally objects to the ambiguity and vagueness of “conversations for which you were present but did not participate.” Plaintiff additionally objects to the burdensomeness of the request as it is unlimited in time frame and, as such, overbroad, harassing, annoying, irrelevant, and unintelligible.
Plaintiff further objects that any such documents are in the custody and control of Defendants and, as a result, are more easily assessable to Defendants than to Plaintiff. Thus, this request is harassing, annoying, and burdensome. Plaintiff additionally objects to this request as it calls for documents protected by the attorney work product privilege and work product doctrine.
Plaintiff additionally objects that this request assumes a fact not admitted into evidence concerning “audio tape recordings, or other recordings of your conversations with (_), officers, and/or employees (including conversations for which you were present but did not participate).” Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad in its use of the terms “audio tape recordings” and “other recordings.”
Plaintiff additionally objects on the grounds that this request seeks information neither relevant to the subject matter of the action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This case deals exclusively with the inspection and production of documents in the custody and control of Defendants, as set forth in the California Public Records Act.
*Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that it is vague.
Subject to and without waiver of their general and specific objections, Defendants will make available for inspection and copying all such documents in their possession which they believe are responsive to this Request.
Defendants object to this Request on the grounds that it is vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome.
* Plaintiff objects to this Request, insofar as it seeks all documents which refer in any way to defendant, on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of their general and specific objections, will make available for inspection and copying defendant’s personnel record.
* Plaintiff objects to this Request insofar as it seeks disclosure of information that is protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. Defendants object to sub-part C of this Request on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of confidential information and is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Subject to and without waiver of their general and specific objections, and subject to an appropriate stipulation and protective order regarding confidentiality, Defendants will make available for inspection and copying all non-privileged documents which they believe are responsive to parts (A) and (B) of this Request.
* Plaintiff objects to this Request on the ground that the term "support personnel" is vague and on the grounds that the Request is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks confidential employee information.
Subject to and without waiver of their general objections, Plainfiff will make available for inspection and copying all such documents in their possession which they believe are responsive to this Request.
* Plaintiff objects to this Request on the grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive and may require the disclosure of confidential information.
Subject to and without waiver of their general and specific objections, Plaintiff will make available for inspection and copying.
*Plaintiff objects to each and every request for production to the extent that the request seeks information protected by the attorney/client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege.
*Plaintiff objects to each and every request for production to the extent that the request is unduly and unreasonably oppressive, harassing, annoying, burdensome, overbroad or constitutes an abuse of the discovery practice.
Plaintiff objects that this request is irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad. Plaintiff further objects to the ambiguity and overbroadness of the words “writings,” “things,” and “conversations.” Plaintiff further objects to the ambiguity and overbroadness of “Santa Monica College District agents, officers, and/or employees.”
Plaintiff additionally objects to the ambiguity and vagueness of “conversations for which you were present but did not participate.” Plaintiff additionally objects to the burdensomeness of the request as it is unlimited in time frame and, as such, overbroad, harassing, annoying, irrelevant, and unintelligible.
*Plaintiff further objects that any such documents are in the custody and control of Defendants and, as a result, are more easily assessable to Defendants than to Plaintiff. Thus, this request is harassing, annoying, and burdensome. Plaintiff additionally objects to this request as it calls for documents protected by the attorney work product privilege and work product doctrine.
*Plaintiff additionally objects that this request assumes a fact not admitted into evidence concerning “audio tape recordings, or other recordings of your conversations with (___), officers, and/or employees (including conversations for which you were present but did not participate).” Plaintiff further objects that this request is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad in its use of the terms “audio tape recordings” and “other recordings.”
*Plaintiff additionally objects on the grounds that this request seeks information neither relevant to the subject matter of the action, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This case deals exclusively with the inspection and production of documents in the custody and control of Defendants, as set forth in the California Public Records Act.